Explore how retirement readiness and succession planning impact your organizational resilience. From building internal talent pipelines to capturing institutional knowledge before it disappears, this conversation with Peter Cappelli from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, breaks down what business leaders need to know to future-proof their workforce — and how to take action before it’s too late. In this episode, you’ll learn: - Why traditional succession planning often fails in today’s uncertain world - How to preserve institutional knowledge before key talent retires - Ways to balance long-term planning with short-term performance pressures
Explore how retirement readiness and succession planning impact your organizational resilience. From building internal talent pipelines to capturing institutional knowledge before it disappears, this conversation with Peter Cappelli from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, breaks down what business leaders need to know to future-proof their workforce — and how to take action before it’s too late.
In this episode, you’ll learn:
Resources from this Week's Episode –
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/succession-planning-critical-uncertain-times
Managing the Older Worker: How to Prepare for the New Organizational Order: https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Older-Worker-Prepare-Organizational/dp/1422131653
Subscribe to Tomorrowist to get the latest episodes, expert insights, and additional resources delivered straight to your inbox: https://shrm.co/voegyz
---
Explore SHRM’s all-new flagships. Content curated by experts. Created for you weekly. Each content journey features engaging podcasts, video, articles, and groundbreaking newsletters tailored to meet your unique needs in your organization and career. Learn More: https://shrm.co/coy63r
[00:00:00]
Jerry: I'm Jerry Won. Welcome to tomorrow is where we explore the trend shaping the future of work. This week we're diving into a challenge that's looming for all organizations, the coming wave of retirements. What happens when decades of experience, leadership, and knowledge walk out the door?
And how can employers prepare now to ensure business continuity and support generations of talent? Here to share what retirement readiness really looks like is Peter Cappelli, professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of Wharton Center for Human Resources. Peter, welcome to tomorrows.
Peter: [00:01:00] Thank you, Jerry.
Jerry: You've written extensively about workforce management, talent development. How prepared are most organizations for the coming wave of retirement, and where do you see the biggest gaps?
Peter: well, I'd say, they're not thinking about it. Um, and I think that's been, been true for a while. I mean, there's so many other things going on, you know, a lot of management issues just get pushed to the, to the side. You know, I think, um, we could just go down the list of things that I. There's concerns to the employees themselves, but the perspective of the employer, it's knowledge transition, that's generally the biggest issues. And after that, it's probably succession related issues, although I'm not sure that that has gotten so much attention that companies are so concerned about that.
But knowledge retention probably the big one Then.
Jerry: And what, what are the biggest consequences of not paying attention to it and therefore losing experience employees either to retirement or to, you know, other, other [00:02:00] factors of leaving the workforce?
Peter: You know, years ago I used to take my MBA students on a really dangerous, field trip. We used to go visit companies when they made things, including US Steel. And we went to a steel integrated steelworks at, Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, long since closed. And, in a steel mill where they're making steel, I mean it's a big, big production.
And these huge vats, they literally blast them open with a stick of dynamite the ceramic, seal out comes this molten. Um, steel, it's so hot that you can't be within a hundred or 200 feet of it, getting burning. The thing that I thought was most interesting there, and you're probably wondering how this relates to our topic, is that they told me they had just had an early retirement program and that the average age of their steel makers had fallen from 35 years to 25 years.[00:03:00]
Jerry: Hmm.
Peter: And you know, you thought, okay, well what difference would that make? It said it, they said it increased their costs of making steel by 10%. So the age experience gap, from 25 years making something to 35 years, you would think, how much more could you learn another 10 years of
Jerry: Hmm.
Peter: apparently enough that it really made a difference. And that's the consequence, right? Is that there's all kinds of things that older employees know that younger ones don't. If you substitute experience for age, 'cause they're extremely correlated, then it all makes sense if we say. Age. It sounds pejorative, but if you say experience, it sounds positive.
Right? So that's the question, right? And I think in addition to simply experience, that example was all people doing the same job, but if you have people who are doing different jobs, then you have the problem of succession. As part of that, you've got somebody who's leaving an entire job. [00:04:00] it's not just that the people behind them are doing exactly the same thing, so the knowledge transfer there becomes hugely important.
Jerry: Thanks for that. I think, you know, it's such a fascinating topic now with technology and, and you gave the example of a steel mill, but. Most office jobs or corporate jobs are being impacted by the advancement and the quick advancement of ai, how that replaces certain skills or, or tasks. Um, and so, you know, knowledge transfer is something that we talk about a lot, but it's rarely done.
I think there's good intent there.
Peter: Yep.
Jerry: Um, but you know, most organizations can do better. Um, what are some effective strategies organizations can implement? From your research and your knowledge to preserve institutional knowledge before it's too late and they're scrambling to do it in reverse.
Peter: Yeah, so I, I forgot early on to plug the book I wrote on this a while ago called Managing the Older Worker. It's been a while. and I am certainly an older worker. now, maybe I could just tell you another historical story about this, and this is about mandatory [00:05:00] retirement, which was invented at Sears Roebuck. In the 1930s, and the reason it was invented was because Sears discovered that the senior people were not helping the junior people learn anything. And the reason is they thought the junior people were gonna take their jobs. So
what Sears did is it created mandatory retirement and says, look, these people are gonna take your jobs, and it's gonna be in a very clear timeline, so you might as well help 'em, and maybe they'll be grateful for you or they should be. Um, and so I think that's the big thing, you know, if you can imagine that it's coming, you could do something about it. If you ignore it, you, you can't. My sense is that we've gotten kind of dumber post covid. So if you went back to 2019, a lot of these ideas were very much kind of on the agenda, on all kinds of things.
How do we manage these transitions? So knowledge gets transferred And a lot of that [00:06:00] was, you know, about just buddying people up, you know, for example, making it a priority and telling the junior people, you know, look, this person here is going to be retiring. Or they're just, you know, experienced, would you go talk to them and hang out together?
And if you make it something that is. It doesn't have to be mandated,
Jerry: Hmm.
Peter: desirable by the company, then it's kind of gonna happen. But if you don't, um, neither party really thinks it's a big priority.
Jerry: Right.
Peter: young people don't know what they don't know, and older people kind of know it, but they don't necessarily feel like taking on an extra task with somebody who doesn't wanna do it, right?
So it doesn't take a lot to move this along, but somebody at the top has to say, Hey, it's important. We need to do something about this.
Jerry: Let's take a quick pivot into a cousin of knowledge transfer, which is succession planning, and obviously we can't talk about. Managing an older workforce or the transitions without talking about succession planning. Um, most organizations, again, don't do it [00:07:00] well. Um, in a SHRM survey recently said only 21% of HR professionals said that their organizations even had a formal succession plan.
Peter: Yeah.
Jerry: what does that look like in, in practice and. I, I wanna also note, you know, we live in a world where, particularly for publicly traded companies, the incentives for management and executives is more short term than it used to be. And so how do you balance succession planning, what seems like a long term priority and balance that with the ways that people are judged their KPIs and the ways that they're, you know, at, at the end of the day compensated for their decision making.
Peter: Well, I think it's important to draw some distinctions just with respect to terms, right? So, if we think about, developing talent internally, that's something that all organizations should be doing, and that means preparing people as well for bigger jobs. something that all organizations ought to be doing. Promoting from within is also something that has [00:08:00] declined a lot, frankly. And then after that, we've got the issue of. Succession planning. Succession planning means trying to predict who will be in which job and pick them in advance. I don't think all organizations need to do succession planning, but preparedness makes sense. That is knowing how we're going to. Execute this, particularly at the very top level of the company and preparing people for bigger jobs is something we should all be doing, right? The, the problem with succession planning is that you're, I mean, succession planning, the sense of let's pick today, the leader who will be in this job in four years, that you're making two bets, and the first bet is that the description of the job that you've got in mind now will still be there in four years.
We can predict accurately what we'll need today. That doesn't work all that well. And the second is that the person we pick [00:09:00] today will grow into that role adequately still be here, four years. And both have to be true at the same time or the thing doesn't work right? So if you think the odds are 50% that we could do a good job predicting today what the skills will be, requirements. And 50% that we could pick somebody who will still be here and be able to grow into that, right? the odds that the succession plan is gonna work are 0.5 times 0.5. So it's a one in four chance. then the question is, do we really wanna bet like that? And I think for most organizations, the answer's probably no. and you could do succession. At closer to the end. but you should have a plan in place as to here's how we're gonna do it. And you should have people who are prepared within reasonably short order to step into a role like that. But, you know, picking the person in advance is not something that you necessarily have to do.
But I think the [00:10:00] consequence of being in a world where things are uncertain, much more uncertain than they were before, and that where outside candidates are. Something that most organizations look at routinely, certainly for the very top job, CEO job, but you could do succession all the way down. It just makes less sense to try to do this far in advance
Jerry: Right.
Peter: to pick the people you know far in advance as well. But, you know, shortening the period of time. So don't make succession planning a four year exercise, but you know, maybe a one year exercise, but especially having a pool of people, small pool. Who we think could do the job makes perfect sense in something we ought to be doing.
Jerry: In both terms of, um, succession planning and knowledge transfer, we use the example of the Theo Mill, which are the actual knowledge bank of the workers. We also have talked about sort of at the executive ranks. How should organizational leaders think about the balance of planning for [00:11:00] both ends? Because you want the institutional knowledge of how to run the business, but there's value in succession planning and knowledge transfer of how the actual entity is run.
How? How should we think about that?
Peter: right, I think at the, at the lower end, it is in many ways easier to do because there's less. The stakes are lower, right? For one thing, we know we're going to need a lot of, let's say, first line supervisors or a lot of master mechanics. Um, and you know, it's not also quite. life and generational changing event as it is to become the CEO of a big company. So the stakes are lower, easier to do, and you know, that is a kind of low impact exercise. You know, let's just get these guys together and pair 'em up and do something formal. so that they know that this is important for us to do. Um, that's, you know, pretty straightforward. And because they're working similarly on the same kind of things, [00:12:00] um, it's easier to do it on the ground, face-to-face. Day-to-day, um, at the more senior level, it's a higher stakes exercise and we're talking about generally succession into a new job, which is even harder, exercise to do. Um, and it's also one, frankly, where the person at the top doesn't always love it. CEOs often resist having a succession plan. Steve Jobs famously, right? But you know, Elon Musk, I'm sure has no successor and succession plan in mind. So it's a much harder exercise to do at the top, and the knowledge sharing part also gets trickier. So punchline of that is. You really should be doing it at the lower levels. 'cause
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: to do. People generally like it, you know, the senior people like to pass on what they know to the junior people and the junior people soon figure out, the older people know something and they're [00:13:00] kind of grateful for it. You know, one thing we should also talk about, but I won't make sure we get to it at some point, is, connections, right?
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: can stay in touch with people afterwards as well. So might talk about that.
Jerry: We talked about generations, and I think that's a, been a, um, an ongoing hot topic, right? How different generations, work, how they show up to work, how they think about work tenure and all these things. And, you know, much has been said and written about. Generalizations of different generations on how they work.
And, you know, the, the young folks look at the old folks saying, you don't know what you're doing. The old folks look at younger folks saying, you guys don't know what you're doing. Um, how, how do we balance the need as organizational leaders to develop young talent, build that pipeline, retaining older workers who have institutional knowledge and wisdom based on their experience and to build a cohesive system where.
There's not as much judgment, but there's, you [00:14:00] know, humility and openness to learn so that organizations can pass on these things effectively.
Peter: Well, you know, this is a topic where, um, the disconnect between practice and knowledge, and by knowledge I mean what we really know is just enormous. So one of the most important, but absolutely least read documents in modern times is a report done by the National Academy of Sciences published three years ago. generational differences, and this was, um, a report put together by leading demographers in the US and I was not part of it. I did testify a tiny bit, in one part of it. And their conclusion, is that all these generational stories are fake. There's no evidence for any of them. There's no Gen X.
There's no Gen Y, there's no Gen Z. it's entirely cooked up by consultants who are making relatively simple mistakes, and the mistake they're making mainly is confusing. What are known as age effects? Age effects mean as people get older, their needs [00:15:00] change and their interests change in quite predictable ways.
You know, if you think about what your focus was when you were right outta college. It's quite different than it is maybe 10 years later if you have a family and a mortgage and that sort of stuff. Quite predictable what happens there. So they're seeing those kind of changes and they're saying, ah, they're generational differences.
Right?
Jerry: Hmm.
Peter: if you're paying any attention to this literature over the last 20 years, I. The complaints about whatever the new generation is, X, Y, Z, QRST, whatever it is, X one prime, they're always the same. You know, they're always about people who are impatient, and they're always about people who have real needs, you know, social needs, all that sort of stuff.
So they're just attributes of younger people really. the good news for that though is the second. Thing that we know, which has not translated into practice, is that if you put younger people together, they don't necessarily get along 'cause they're competing for the
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: If you put older people [00:16:00] together, they don't necessarily get along 'cause they're competing for the same stuff. If you mix them up, they actually get along better. And the reason is 'cause they're not competing for the same stuff. You know, the older people look at the younger people and say, they just really don't know anything. We need to help them. And the younger people look at the older people and say, they just can't do anything.
We need to help them. So they actually work together better. So I don't think there's anything really to fear from that. It's a real opportunity. Um, there is one problem, which I think is relatively new and it's. What my book was really about, it's called Managing the Older Worker, is um, that we are much more likely now to get younger supervisors managing older subordinates.
And the
Jerry: Hmm.
Peter: for that is many people want to come back from retirement and keep working and there's some evidence that at least in some roles, you can get to the top faster now. So you could have very well have a [00:17:00] younger. Boss managing an older subordinate. And that can be a little tricky. I would say the trickiest part on that is with the supervisor. And what they say, they don't always say it out loud, is, this person looks like my mom. I can't imagine bossing her around. You know? And so they're afraid to do it. Um, partly for that reason and partly because they think, you know, this person has been doing this for 40 years. I can't. What can I tell them?
Right. And I think, you know, the latter is the problem because as a good supervisor, as we know, your job is not to dictate to the experts below you. You don't have to be better at what they're doing than they are. And that's not your role anyway, right? Your role is to kind of, you know, manage the interface and manage the projects and not do their work for them. So I'd say that's the real likely hangup. that we see a lot of [00:18:00] discrimination against older workers. Some of it because, um, younger supervisors are reluctant to hire them. you might say that's discrimination. You might say that's discomfort. Um, but it's largely misplaced. You know, the older workers, if they're applying for the job and they know there's a younger supervisor, they kind of know what they're getting into. Um. is also probably true though that many things that work well with younger employees don't work quite so well with older ones For sure. Do this. 'cause I said so doesn't work very well with somebody who's done it longer than you have.
Jerry: Sure.
Peter: carrots and sticks don't work quite so well. You know, like, we're gonna fire you. I'm 67. You know, it's not such a big deal. Right? Um, so I, I think you do have to manage differently, but I think we would agree that the way you manage. workers is the way you should be managing everybody. Right? And that is to try to work with them and not try to micromanage them [00:19:00] and boss 'em around, and engage what they know, right?
So the military's been actually very good at this we probably know that if you look at the service academies, they release 22-year-old lieutenants and they put them in charge of 45-year-old sergeants, right? the sergeants know a lot of stuff, and the smart lieutenants embrace that, right?
So I have a, a friend here who was a Chief master sergeant, and, you know, really decades of experience, and he said when he would get a second lieutenant, 22-year-old, he would say to them, sir, you can do anything you'd like. Just ask me first, you know, just engage me a little bit on this. Right.
Jerry: I think the example that we often think about, and it is, um, you know, shared on the internet quite a bit, is in that example, Peter, when a young new attorney joins a firm
Peter: Yep.
Jerry: and [00:20:00] how they treat the paralegal who may have been there for three decades, and understanding that the paralegal actually has more institutional knowledge, they have organizational know it, know how, but also solve power in the organization.
How that young attorney says, I am the attorney, you are the paralegal. This is the power structure. But understanding that nuance, I think is critical for, for mutual success. And you know, it's joked about on the internet, right? Like, oh no, like this guy doesn't know what he or she's doing. And you know, understand that, you know, one thing that I think is.
True whether it is a diversity in generation, um, but the workforce in America is and will continue to get more diverse based on broad demographics. There are gender differences of expectation. There are cultural differences. You know, you mentioned the military. You know, in some cultures there is definitely age-based hierarchy and respect.
And even the ways that we use words that can change that dynamic, um, knowing that that is the future [00:21:00] of. More diversity and a more, diverse workforce. How can organizational leaders both train and to, ready their leaders and their people so that we can, both get through the transitions of not only retirement, but also, general belonging in the workplace?
Peter: Yeah, so the, the, I think it's the Army has a. about this, and apologies to the Army, it may actually be the Marines. Um, they have a very explicit model about, if you are the, an officer, the second lieutenant, let's say, um, about how to assess everybody you're going to deal with before you deal with them. And it is sort of going down a list of things that might matter. You know, demography is not destiny, you're of a particular age or particular gender that doesn't define. And predict with great certainty how you're gonna behave, but it's something that you might put in the back of your mind.
Right. And I think that sounds like pretty good advice in general. You know, just [00:22:00] awareness of who are we dealing with here? Don't, you don't have to act on it. You know, you wanna sort of start out, same way with everybody, but. know, the army motto that no battle plans survives first contact with the enemy.
You know that you gotta adjust pretty quickly. Um, and that if you have in the back of your mind these possible factors that might be going on, you know, you can adjust more quickly. So I think that's kind of the heart of it, right? Is to prepare people. with some understanding of the person that they're about to deal with, um, and not make it stereotypes, but to keep it in the back of your mind as a way to adjust the way your relationship is going.
If you don't think it's going perfectly.
Jerry: You, you mentioned earlier in the conversation the example of Sears with forced retirement. We've also talked about sort of the dangers of that with the US steel example of institutional knowledge going out and, and the cost ultimately going up to produce the [00:23:00] same unit. Um. We have heard conversations that we have seen, um, you know, with respect to the federal government as of late, with offers to leave earlier, the impact that it has had on, uh.
A lot of different things and concerns being shared of we just don't have enough people. And even if we were to replace them with younger people,
Peter: Yep.
Jerry: the skill level, the, you know, and we're seeing that with, you know, even, um, agencies like the FAA in the last few weeks, you know, and, and the, and the, real impacts that can have based on not only the decrease of bodies, but.
What's in their, what's in their brains? Um, how, how do we balance that? Because, you know, we've also seen businesses prioritize, you know, um, balancing their workforce to, um, plan better for their financial future in terms of pensions and, you know, how to, how to right size things. Um, how should organization leaders balance that and, you know, um, think about what is the right thing to do, [00:24:00] both in the short and the long term.
Peter: Yeah. Well, I think they're just making a lot of mistakes, frankly. And the mistakes that they're making are just not paying attention to this. You know, there's a kind of prevailing view that layoffs um. Pretty obviously what you should do and cut early and cut often. And you know, the evidence on that is exactly the opposite.
That companies that can delay layoffs the longest end up in better situation because they capture the rebound when things pick back up, at least in most of the recessions we've had so far. Now if, if you're a company that's in bankruptcy or something, you know, it's obviously a different sort of story, but I think there's a view. That getting rid of people is not a big problem, and replacing them is not a big issue either. They see it as kind of a plus, you know, you can restructure by getting new people in. My colleague, Edward and Matthew Bidwell did a. A lovely study, and I wish he had a dollar for every time I mentioned it, but here's the study he [00:25:00] did looking at, directors in big corporations, banks in particular, and comparing people who were promoted from within versus people who were hired from the outside to fill those vacancies. And he found that the people. Who were hired from the outside. It took them three years to achieve the same performance level as people promoted from within. and it took the people promoted from within seven years to make as much pay as
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: hired from the outside. I. You know, so I think the, the view that is widely, held, I think particularly in the investment world, but in much of the corporate world, is that, you know, laying off or replacing people pretty simple.
Just do it right. think we don't, I. Well, it's not appreciated at the senior level, how long it takes for people to understand the organization and to get really good and proficient at their jobs. It's a really costly thing to do, so don't [00:26:00] churn 'em is the big point here. I had a, an interesting, conversation with a union leader recently who had gone into a company, manufacturing company where they represented the employees and he saw on every machine there was a dollar sign with big number on it. And he said, what's this about? And the management said, we want every employee to know how expensive these tools are that they're working with. He said, okay. So they went outside they got name tags for everybody and they wrote dollar signs with big numbers on all of them, and they put 'em on the employee's chest. said, we want the managers to understand how expensive each of these employees are and how valuable they're, and it literally would change things if they understood that, but I think it doesn't percolate through at the top. Right. So I think that's an awareness issue.
Jerry: as we wrap here, we, we talked about retirement and how even that term or that idea is. Changing, evolving, people are staying in the workforce longer. People are living longer in general. [00:27:00] Um, the options to do work, and we'll put work in big giant air quotes here, um, non-traditional work, whether that's in the creator economy or making a living online or doing something creative, also lengthens what people would consider their window of work.
Um, you also mentioned relying on. Technically retired folks to come and advise and to help businesses grow or to consult from the external, although they may not register on a survey of, of fully employed workforce. Um, how does that change, or how do you see that changing in the next few years? And, and again, how can organizations take advantage of these really smart, knowledgeable, wise folks who are available and are willing to, you know, help organizations grow?
Peter: Yeah. Well, it's a really simple thing to do, and interestingly, I would say. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, it was a really popular idea and a lot of organizations had alumni clubs to stay engaged with these
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: of them had quite [00:28:00] explicit relationships with their retirees to bring them back for projects and assignments.
And it was quite formal stuff, right? you could do it informally though, you know, all it takes is. You know, being able to reach out to the people who have retired recently and they're really, really useful, right? I mean, if you've never dealt with a client before and the person who managed this account has retired, and if you could get 10 minutes of their time, you could learn a lot, right? So just being able to maintain those connections, um, is not that hard to do, but it is, you know, people just don't think about it. Unless somebody higher up in the company says, Hey, this is important thing to do and we, we want you to do it right. It's probably all that we really have to do. It wouldn't take much to formalize it either.
You know, small budgets to take the people out to lunch or
Jerry: Mm.
Peter: have a quarterly check-in or annual check-in or something. 'cause what you really want is real time conversations. [00:29:00] know, I don't need you for a while. Um, you're the boss who retired, but then in two months, wow, I really do. you just need to have that line exist so that you can reach out.
Generally, the retired people are delighted to have somebody reconnect and ask
Jerry: Yeah.
Peter: for help, you know, so it's an easy thing to do. It doesn't require much time and energy to put in place, but again, everything's about top management attention, right? Whether they'll say important to do.
Jerry: You know, I don't think it's just for retirees. I think there are, you know, most schools do it well, right? They, they set up alumni associations. Obviously there's a vested financial interest to solicit donations and engagement down the line. Um, few companies do it well. Um, you know, notably, some consulting companies invest heavily in their alumni network.
Um, and, and those actually also invest heavily in engaging with non retiree exit folks, right? So people who leave earlier because they know that the relationships.
Peter: Mm-hmm.
Jerry: Or maybe they could go and become a client of theirs at some point. And so, you know, I, [00:30:00] I think you bring up a fascinating point. It is probably a extremely high ROI, activity.
Um, and even without the financial components of it, it's just a feel-good thing to do, to take care of the people that you know have to care of you.
Peter: Yeah. And, and, and just to put a, a point on that, about 15 years ago, there were actually companies that were in the business of helping. I. set up these alumni networks and you know, they were, everybody thought it was a great
Jerry: Yeah.
Peter: for some reason a lot of these things just faded away.
It's
Jerry: Well,
Peter: bad. Maybe they'll come back now. Maybe
Jerry: hope so.
Peter: this happen, Jerry.
Jerry: If, if you're listening, whoever's listening and you got in your, in your smart MBA, perhaps that just graduated from Wharton and one of Peter's students, this is a, a, a good idea to take and, and run with,
Peter: Yeah.
Jerry: Peter as we are up here. Um, what, what is the one thing that organizations can do tomorrow, to ensure that they're not caught unprepared for surge retirement and to make sure that they can handle their transitions, their knowledge transfers, succession plans, and, all the other things that happen with older workers?
Well.
Peter: [00:31:00] Well, if you're somebody at or near the top, call your CHRO and say, I wanna have a longer conversation laying these things out. We wanna talk about knowledge. Here's the general problem. It's knowledge transfer. I. Succession of talents, not just a set of boxes and moving people around, how do we do it?
Right? And my guess is your chief human resource officer would be delighted to have that. Generally they're waiting for the CEO to signal something. Um, and then, you know, a lot of it's common sense and open it up to other people and you'll get all the good ideas coming out on how to do it. But again, it just takes the CEO to say, talk about this.
Jerry: I will add one more thing, which is to go read Peter's book, managing the Older Workforce to help, organizational leaders, be better prepared for tomorrow. Peter. Professor Cappelli, thank you so much for joining us. Professor of Management at the Wharton School. I. Wonderful conversation about how organizational leaders and us just even, [00:32:00] the workforce can be best prepared for the transitions that are happening in the workplace, the, or the workforce, and then how we can all benefit from that.
Peter, thank you so much for joining us on tomorrows, and we'll see you next time. Thank you. Thank you.